John L. O’Kane

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2020 to 2025 taxation years, arguing issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The appellant had previously withdrawn appeals for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years following an agreement with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that issue estoppel did not apply because the prior appeals were withdrawn without a final Board decision.

The Board also held that the current appeals were not an abuse of process, as allowing them to proceed would not offend judicial economy, consistency, or finality.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(3)(b) to dismiss the plaintiff's action, arguing that the plaintiff, an undischarged bankrupt, lacked the legal capacity to commence the action.

The plaintiff contended this was a misnomer curable under Rule 5.

The court found that the property forming the basis of the claim vested in the trustee in bankruptcy upon the plaintiff's assignment into bankruptcy, and the plaintiff's failure to disclose these substantial assets to the trustee meant the action, commenced while he was an undischarged bankrupt, was a nullity.

The court distinguished the case from situations where a misnomer could be cured, noting the trustee was a distinct party and had not sought to be substituted.

The motion to dismiss was granted, and the action was deemed a nullity, having been commenced outside the limitation period if re-filed.

The City of Hamilton requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that valued a 411.6-acre portion of a steel production property at a nominal $100 per acre due to alleged environmental contamination.

Shortly after the original hearing, the entire property sold for $518 million.

The Board found that MPAC had jurisdiction to issue the corrected 2018 assessment and that the original panel did not err in admitting hearsay evidence regarding contamination risks.

However, the Board concluded that the post-hearing sale constituted new evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier and could have affected the original panel's conclusion that the lands were unmarketable.

Consequently, the Board ordered a new hearing of the entire appeal before a different panel.

The applicant requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision regarding property tax relief for a hotel undergoing demolition and renovation during the 2016 and 2017 taxation years.

The applicant argued the Board erred by not considering relief under section 357 of the Municipal Act, 2001 for 2016, and by misinterpreting the demolition provisions for 2017.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding no errors in the original decision, as no section 357 appeal was actually filed for 2016, and the demolition that rendered the property substantially unusable occurred prior to 2017.

The appellant brought a motion requesting that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) be prohibited from relying on undisclosed lease, income, and expense information from comparable properties in its evidence.

MPAC argued it was prohibited from disclosing such information under s. 53(1) of the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant had a remedy available to request a disclosure order under s. 53(5) of the Act but chose not to exercise it.

The Board held that MPAC may rely on properly undisclosed information in its evidence, and the adjudicator retains discretion to weigh the evidence.

The Appellant sought tax relief for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years under s. 357(1)(a) of the Municipal Act, arguing that a 2019 zoning by-law amendment permitting multi-residential development constituted a 'change event' that made the property eligible for reclassification from Commercial to Multi-Residential.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeals, finding that a change in zoning does not constitute a change in use.

As the property remained vacant until construction commenced in 2021, there was no change event during the applicable taxation years.

The appellant sought tax relief for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years under s. 357(1)(a) of the Municipal Act, arguing that a zoning by-law amendment permitting multi-residential development constituted a 'change event' that made the property eligible for reclassification from Commercial to Multi-Residential.

The Assessment Review Board denied the appeals, finding that a change in zoning does not equate to a change in use.

Because the property remained vacant until construction commenced in 2021, no change event occurred during the applicable taxation years.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion seeking disclosure from Cadillac Fairview and MPAC regarding property assessment appeals for the CF Lime Ridge Mall.

Cadillac Fairview opposed the motion, arguing the City failed to comply with the deadlines set out in the Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board found that the City missed the deadlines for bringing the motion and failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension.

Consequently, the Board denied the City's motion for disclosure.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion requesting that three separate property assessment appeals concerning two adjacent properties operated as a single business follow a common Schedule of Events for their remaining due dates.

The City of Brampton supported the motion, while the property owner opposed it, arguing potential prejudice.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that a common schedule would avoid duplication of effort, ensure consistency in decision outcomes, and result in the most expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceedings without prejudicing any party.

The City of Niagara Falls brought a motion for disclosure in an assessment appeal concerning a property comprising a parking garage and a waterpark.

The City sought documents relating to revenue sharing, leases, parking activity logs, parking rates, and financial statements of the corporate group.

The Assessment Review Board applied the two-part test of relevance and proportionality.

The Board granted the requests for revenue sharing details, leases (narrowed to the subject property), activity logs, and parking rates, finding them relevant to the income approach to valuation and proportionate.

The request for the corporate group's financial statements was denied as overly broad and disproportionate.

The appellant company sought property tax relief for a hotel undergoing major renovations and rebranding in 2016 and 2017.

For 2016, the Board found it had no jurisdiction to consider a s. 357 appeal as none was filed, but granted a vacant unit rebate under s. 364 for the entire property from May to December, calculating the rebate based on the assessed value rather than a notional value.

For 2017, the Board found the property ineligible for relief under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) because the demolition occurred prior to 2017, and ineligible under s. 357(1)(g) due to the statutory exception for vacant unit rebate eligible properties.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to grant a s. 364 rebate for 2017 as no such application was made.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for an order declaring that the appellant failed to comply with Rule 43 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, and that equity of the assessments was not a live issue for the hearing.

The Board found that the appellant's Statement of Issues did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 43.

However, the Board declined to declare that equity was not a live issue, noting its statutory duty under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act to consider equitable assessment.

The Board found that MPAC and the City had sufficient notice of the appellant's position through an expert report, mitigating any prejudice, and allowed equity to be raised at the hearing.

Following a summary judgment motion where the defendant was substantially successful in defeating the plaintiff law firm's claim to enforce a liquidated damages clause, the court assessed costs.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $46,750.08, while the plaintiff argued for $10,000.00.

The court found the motion to be of moderate complexity but noted some duplication of effort by the defendant's counsel.

Costs were fixed at $35,000.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following a decision dismissing the plaintiff law firm's claim for liquidated damages against a former partner, the parties sought directions on consequential issues.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $897.15 in interest for withholding the defendant's capital account funds, exercising its discretion under section 130 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court also ordered the defendant to pay her portion of the actual costs to remove her from the firm's corporate and partnership registers, rather than an estimated amount.

The City of Guelph brought a motion for disclosure in an ongoing property assessment appeal concerning a Magna manufacturing facility.

The City sought detailed financial and operational data, including manufacturing costs and equipment replacement costs, to assess functional obsolescence using the cost approach.

Magna opposed the motion, arguing the requests were disproportionate and irrelevant as it was not using a full model plant methodology.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding the requested information relevant to the dispute over functional obsolescence and proportional to the significant valuation impact, ordering disclosure subject to confidentiality undertakings.

The plaintiff law firm sought to enforce a liquidated damages clause against a departing partner.

The defendant partner counterclaimed for repayment of a capital account loan and unpaid draw.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding the liquidated damages clause inapplicable as the defendant's departure qualified as a retirement under the partnership agreement.

The court allowed the defendant's counterclaim for the capital account repayment and interest on the portion withheld by the firm, but dismissed the claim for the unpaid draw.

The City of Kitchener brought a motion to validate the late service of its Responding Statement of Issues (RSOI) and to amend it in an ongoing property assessment appeal.

The City argued that staff turnover and a period without an assessment analyst constituted exceptional circumstances under Rule 82.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the delay was caused by the City's own carelessness in failing to monitor the appeal timelines, which did not amount to exceptional circumstances.

The Board also noted that granting the extension would significantly prejudice the respondent, Canadian Tire Corporation.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that it was exempt from municipal taxes on certain railway lands under s. 315 of the Municipal Act.

The appellant argued the lands were leased to a third party for valuable consideration.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's finding that the agreements between the parties created a business relationship akin to a joint venture, not a lease, as they did not grant exclusive possession.

The appeal was dismissed.

Canadian Tire Corporation brought a motion to disqualify Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc., MTE Paralegal Professional Corporation, and their expert consultant from acting for various municipalities in assessment appeals.

The expert had previously worked for Canadian Tire's consultant on the same appeals and had access to confidential information and strategy.

The Assessment Review Board found it had jurisdiction to disqualify representatives to prevent abuse of process.

Applying the MacDonald Estate and Stewart tests, the Board concluded the expert received confidential information, the presumption that this information was imparted to the new firm was not rebutted, and the risk of prejudice required their removal from the record.

The applicant railway company sought a declaration that its railway right‑of‑way lands were exempt from municipal taxation under s. 315(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, on the basis that the lands were leased to another entity for valuable consideration.

The court examined the contractual arrangements between the railway owner, a rail users’ consortium, and a licensed rail operator governing the operation and maintenance of the railway line.

Applying principles distinguishing leases from licences, the court held the agreements did not grant exclusive possession or create a landlord‑tenant relationship but instead resembled a joint venture or operational arrangement.

The court further found that the consortium did not pay rent or other valuable consideration within the meaning of the statute.

As a result, the railway lands were not exempt from municipal taxation.